Agreed.

How would that flow from Andrew's position?

That's not true, Nonny. Relatives are often given the impression that they're being asked to exercise their _right_ to have life support machines switched off, but there is in fact no such right.

You've skewered your own points admirably, "It doesn't add up..." - you can seek to deal with the specific, individual case concerned (in the analogy, the harrassing person making specific, harrassing calls) rather than turning off our telephones. Do you see the parallel, or..?

I also note that the "who are you to judge the best tactics?" line you've taken above is typical: leave this to the experts, stay in line, don't ask questions, get the masters you deserve. Works for you, perhaps. Hasn't worked traditionally in this country, I'm glad to say.

Au contraire. By your thinking, it wouldn't be the presence of the conspirators in the pub that was the thing to clamp down on - it's pubs, per se, for as long as you think suitable. And on that point, how reassuring that you say it's a temporary measure. Yes, with a duration for just as long as it's deemed necessary by the authorities. And next time, now much longer will this be? And thereafter..? And then, when it's appreciated that not having these free speech forums is rather convenient..?(You'll note that this is a point made in the original piece - *perhaps* you read it?) I think that your extended military analogy is pretty distasteful. We're not at war. But here's another one for you, if you don't want to engage on the points already on the table. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that it's this policy that attracts the applause of the Chinese Government? What does it tell you about our current thinking that it's this that has them saying, "oh, they're more on our wavelength"...?

Fair enough. Putting your view of ND to one side, what do you all think about the issues?

Come off it. I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm against people plotting to riot - but when they do so, it's *what they say* that's unlawful, not the forum in which they said it. If they met in pubs to plan, would you ban pubs?

Why?

I am neither Boo nor a Kipper but I do not think that (1) is nonsense.

Is that right? If so, it is fascinating.

Good for DD. A scandal.

At the risk of appearing (or being) immodest, I'd like to point to a link to a piece I wrote on this site about euthanasia: http://bit.ly/ieg8eM

Very best of luck - I look forward to working with you.

I think that Policy Exchange is first class and whilst I've never met David I look forward to working with him - but I must confess that my instinct is that Roger Helmer has a point. Platform 10 as a whole has an element of flattering itself as the home of "reasonable Tories" who are media-friendly, who bash "right wing" (i.e. real) Tories and hope thereby to gain credit in the eyes of others. I'm not saying that David is like that, but the piece that Roger has linked to read like that. Asking the crocodile to eat you last is never wise. Ditto whacking the most active groups on your own team.

The confidentiality of personal data in the Census 2011 is not guaranteed: http://bit.ly/gwGV40

The confidentiality of personal data in the Census 2011 is not guaranteed: http://bit.ly/gwGV40

The ONS produces "Population Trends", a Quarterly publication of statistical analysis of demographics: population size, population change, births/deaths, life expectancy, abortions, migration, marriages. How on earth do they manage it when the Census is only once in every ten years?

I'm not being "fatuous", Victor - I'm responding to an argument advanced very frequently in favour of the census. And as to "fulfilling obligations" to society I note that you didn't respond to this on the last thread about the census: can you not conceive of *any* law you would break on principle? (To repeat myself, I'm not claiming that the census is *the one*, but trying to establish a principle). Once again, I point out that if you *can* conceive of such a thing, then this position of yours is rather peculiar. Do give it a go and respond this time.

quite.

ME TOO

First of all, thanks for the "usually right", Anon! Secondly, putative Deane descendants or no, as I pointed out in the last thread on this topic - do you think we should be obliged to fill out forms on the basis that it will be helpful for someone's hobby in 100 years?